Feminism and Constructivism: A Comparison

Feminists see gender inequality as the fundamental division and patriarchal ideology as playing a key role in legitimising it as gender differences are a feature in all societies. Many ideologies exist to justify these gender inequalities. An example of this is the belief that women should either be virgins or whores; this is shown through Mary Magdalene. This is also reinforces the idea that women are sexual objects. This also shows that ideology can be a belief system in terms of beliefs and ideas about women and how people believe that women are inferior to men.

Traditional gender roles (men performing instrumental tasks and women performing expressive tasks) are viewed as important not only for the individual but also for the economic and social order of society. Failure to maintain the traditional division of labor is believed to lead to destruction of family life as well as higher rates of crime, violence, and drug abuse. Human capital theorists claim that sex differences in promotion rates are due to sex differences in commitment, education, and experience; women are believed to have less to offer employers. Even if these differences exist, this position ignores the fact that women are in a system of inequality, where social expectations prevent them from having qualifications that are similar to men. The conflict perspective emphasizes men’s control over scarce resources. The gendered division of labor within families and in the workplace results from male control of and dominance over women and resources. Differentials between men and women may exist in terms of economic, political, physical, and/or interpersonal power. Men remain the head of household and control the property. Also, men gain power through their predominance in the most highly paid and prestigious occupations and the highest elected offices. Liberal/Equal Rights Feminists – seek equal access for females within the current social system; focus is on equality of opportunity (e.g., civil rights and occupational equality). Radical/Transformative Feminists –

It holds that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity. conflict theory is the view that different social and historical situations give rise to very different group experiences and theories about those experiences. Some of the factors in this theory include physical location, interests, Access to discourses, and social organizations of knowledge production. This theory is very relevant for a feminist perspective in social location. In many societies all across the world, women are considered inferior to men. The conflict theory supports what feminist theorist Sandra Harding calls strong objectivity, or the notion that the perspectives of marginalized and/or oppressed individuals can help to create more objective accounts of the world. With the push for equal pay for women in politics being very relevant still in the nation today, this theory argues how important it is for women and all other minorities to be treated

By evaluating the situation and lives of women in society, the feminist perspective is defined as a source of social inequality, group conflict and social problems. For feminist, patriarchal society is the foundation of social problems. The patriarchal male dominated society where women are meant to justify the rule through devaluation; however, the definition of patriarchy has dominated the powerful group expanded to include the social devaluation of the power rating (Leon-Guerrero, Anna, 2015).

It is more of a grandiose social system that is based on the archetype of femininity and masculinity, not what men or women do. A new behavior does not become feminine because females perform it and vice versa. Risman is expanding the theory of “doing gender” and the understanding of female and male behavior. She states that he idea of “doing gender” changes based on the individual’s gender, race, and social class. If in “doing gender” male privilege is still presence than feminists must undo gender to reach equality within the

Instead, constructivists argue that the most important aspect in deciphering international relations is ideas and how they are interpreted. The Great War can thus be view from a number of perspectives. Under a Marxist view it can be seen as a conflict perpetuated by capitalistic tendencies of competition among the bourgeois among Europe and fought by the oppressed proletariat. (Marx 13). It can be just as likely to interpreted its outbreak as a family feud among the grand children of Queen Victoria. For Constructivist Theory, ideas and norms dictate how states behave and are only important when states deem it as important. Constructivism as a result is based on much more abstract ideals than the other theories. Such can include economics, as is the case for Marxism; it could also be based socially, such as the claim that the European powers chose to go to war with each other in order to quell unrest among their own populations, which at that time is becoming more and more politically fragmented. As Alexander Wendt states in his article “Anarchy is what States Make of It”, “All theories of international relations are based on social theories of the relationship between agency, process, and social structure. Social theories do not determine the content of our international theorizing, but they do structure the questions we ask about world politics and our approaches to answering those questions.” (Wendt 1992) This approach in short focuses on social constructs humans project and how they relate to the way interactions take place. Because of the interpretive flexibilities inherent in Constructivist Theory, WWI could be interpreted a number of ways through Constructivist

Therefore, feminist sociology is not effective in leading women towards change or an end to dominant heterosexual assumptions that put patriarchy at power. Thus, it is difficult for women to breakthrough the oppression merely on theories and lacking practical action or reforms. When sociologists, such as Smith uses categories to analyze the relationship between women and her male counterpart, she draws on this notion that there is this believed or assumed natural heterogender relationship in society. As Smith proposed, men are able to work in the public materialist world and contribute to the everyday capitalist world is due to the existence of a female figure working within the private sphere to support the workings within the household, and in turn, make a patriarchal and capitalist society possible. Therefore, there is the assumed husband and wife, nuclear family in the household, with each playing their part and indicating that every individual is required to situate themselves as actors in this

The term gender refers to the characteristics of a person despite the person’s biological sex. Gender role, which is the focus of sociologists, is the anticipated attitude and behavior that a certain society connects with each sex. With this definition, gender is placed evenly in the sociocultural context. Events that previously occurred had a vital impact on gender roles. Due to this, the study of gender emerged as one of the significant disciplines in the field of sociology in the twentieth century. The gender issues were studied using various research and theory. The research on gender issues provided a testament that all social interactions that occur, and the institutions where they occur, are gendered in one way or the other. Sociologists explain gender roles with respect to various theoretical perspectives. The perspectives are the ways of perceiving social reality that guide the process of research and provide a method for understanding the data. The sociological perspectives on gender roles include functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interaction, and feminist sociological theory (pearsonhighered.com).

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

International politics as a subject involves disparate theories – each has a perception of their own – to propound their ideas. Theories can form an idealized vision: in the form of images. In short, images can act as a lens to elucidate international politics. Each one of them has their unique way to explain the happenings of international politics. In an abstract sense, each image has their own explanation – why international politics assume a certain form over another. This paper analyzes how different images discern international politics. The major images discussed involve – realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Realism, however, provides a near-perfect example in expounding international politics, despite some flaws.

Neorealism, first delineated by Kenneth Waltz, argues that the nature of change within the international system can be abridged to the distribution of capabilities amongst great powers. Neorealism attempts to answer and explain big picture questions in International Relations by focusing on the system level of analysis, actively disregarding individual and state levels of

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

Events which took place after the end of the "Cold War" and the disintegration of the USSR, and in particular for the first year of the XXI century, demanded political scientists, sociologists, geopolitics, as well as psychologists revision of views on the theory of international relations. The variety of theories and attitudes existing today can ultimately be reduced to three known paradigms: realist (including classical realism and neorealism), liberal (traditional idealism and neo-liberalism) and neo-Marxist, each of which comes from its understanding of the nature and character of international relations. I suppose that today it is relevant to look at the contradiction between neorealism and neoliberalism.

Unlike many of the major IR theories, Constructivism doesn’t seek to mold International Relations in a certain way, or provide a specific way states should act. Instead constructivism is an analytical tool that can be used to empirically analyses and understand not only International Relations but also the world around us. It has been

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. By contrast, it will contend that there are in fact more of the latter than there are of the former, on issues such as the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first of all define what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.